What REALLY happened in Benghazi

[TeyshaBlue]

The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright is a great book about the formation of AQ. You can google a bunch of interviews with him about the book if you don't have the time for the whole thing. I'd pay attention to the influence of guys like Sayyid Qutb on both Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

I'll give it a read. It's something that does hold interest but I've just not devoted much time to it. Thx, Chump, RG.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying we should find it reasonable. Just that they have their reasons and worldview. Doesn't validate them.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not saying we should find it reasonable. Just that they have their reasons and worldview. Doesn't validate them.

Point taken.

[TeyshaBlue]

sorry...I meant gfy.

[LnGrrrR]

I think you are assigning something approaching reason to AQ's motivations. As a group, AQ is not bound by nor operates under rule of reason.

While this is true, I do think more people than AQ have issues with us supporting dictators. At the least, it would take away a talking point for AQ's recruitment.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, I'm clearly outnumbered. I think you all would have an issue with $300 a barrel oil if the religious nutters decided to play vengeful god with our economy.

And you are inconsistent in your logic. this statement does not jive with:

The reason I resent the out of you bashing me on the middle east is that I have stated over and over that IMHO we have no ing business being over there and aren't accomplishing a damn thing but blowing trillions of dollars and getting a lot of people killed. Your accusations of me being a Fox news clone are outrageous lies.

Which is it going to be? We don't have any business being over there or that we have a clear economic interest in being over there?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would point out that the US is far less vulnerable now than we used to be per unit of GDP. We use less oil per dollar for a host of reasons. Fuel standards for cars being a prime driver. (hehe)

Given that we are set to outpace the Saudi's for oil production, if the ME goes to , the oil we produce will get hugely valuable. The prospect of $300/bbl for our oil companies from the poor sods in China should make you giddy.

We are far closer to viable electric cars than we were in the 1970's as well. I know you think they are not there yet, but such an oil crisis would make it happen right quick, and that would have a synergetic effect of permanent oil demand destruction, meaning the ME would get much lower prices for the oil they had left, and that would not be coming from US. , $300/bbl prices would spur a uva lot of domestic development here.

Things have changed.

(edit)
China is now the worlds #2 consumer of oil, ahead of Japan. Back in the 1970's it was an oil exporter.
China's oil consumption will almost certainly surpass ours at some point in my lifetime.

This is the reason that i loathe the Keystone pipeline. I DO NOT WANT domestic oil production to be sold to competing economic interests when in a decade it will be worth much more relative to CPI. It's a typical short term interest oil interest that we have no business supporting through ID or subsidies.

[CosmicCowboy]

And you are inconsistent in your logic. this statement does not jive with:



Which is it going to be? We don't have any business being over there or that we have a clear economic interest in being over there?

God you are ing stupid and want to argue about the dumbest ..

We arm the out of those guys so they can defend themselves. It's in our economic interest to preserve the totalitarian societies over that that are still our allies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

God you are ing stupid and want to argue about the dumbest ..

We arm the out of those guys so they can defend themselves. It's in our economic interest to preserve the totalitarian societies over that that are still our allies.

Translation:

Again if you want veracity then you need to make supporting arguments. You still sound petulant and hollow.

I would think that Iraq nor Syria nor Libya were our 'allies.' That makes your latest argument not cogent to the discussion. You suck at logic. I wish you would think through or at least attempt to think through the logical conclusions/connections of your regurgitation. If you are criticizing Rice for reading erroneous talking points then I think you merit some introspection.

So exactly what is your issue with the current administration? An intelligence report was inaccurate in the days immediately following the attack?

[CosmicCowboy]

Translation:

Again if you want veracity then you need to make supporting arguments. You still sound petulant and hollow.

I would think that Iraq nor Syria nor Libya were our 'allies.' That makes your latest argument not cogent to the discussion. You suck at logic. I wish you would think through or at least attempt to think through the logical conclusions/connections of your regurgitation. If you are criticizing Rice for reading erroneous talking points then I think you merit some introspection.

So exactly what is your issue with the current administration? An intelligence report was inaccurate in the days immediately following the attack?

Jesus, how old are you? You write like a pompous high school sop re that just discovered the thesaurus.

Iraq was the perfect geopolitical foil for Iran when Sadaam Hussein was running the place. Bush broke that and we never fixed it.

Libya had actually cleaned up it's act since Reagan nearly blew Gadaffi up with the F-111 raid. Gadaffi was a of a lot better than what they have running the place now.

I don't know where the you got that I said Syria was an allie. Just another Fuzzynuts lie. One of many. If you are going to be an argumentative little at least get your facts straight.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, every time you try to start another stupid argument with me another baby seal gets clubbed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jesus, how old are you? You write like a pompous high school sop re that just discovered the thesaurus.

Iraq was the perfect geopolitical foil for Iran when Sadaam Hussein was running the place. Bush broke that and we never fixed it.

Libya had actually cleaned up it's act since Reagan nearly blew Gadaffi up with the F-111 raid. Gadaffi was a of a lot better than what they have running the place now.

I don't know where the you got that I said Syria was an allie. Just another Fuzzynuts lie. One of many. If you are going to be an argumentative little at least get your facts straight.

And you sound like the typical ignorant that feels threatened by intelligence. Age smack coming from a boomer is hilarious. I would much rather be that kid then a member of the largest failure of a generation than the last one the gilded age spat out. I talk the way that i think and only dumb myself down for kids and even then I try and push them to a greater vocabulary. If you like to mire yourself in the world of a simpleton then go ahead but again your criticisms because I refuse to stoop to said level are again hollow.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's what broke the 'that.'

Libya was instrumental in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Kadhafi had 'cleaned himself up' before that too. Nevermind his attacks or support of attacks against the US and our allies.

And i never said that you claimed Syria was an ally. I never claimed that you said the other two were either. This goes back to your lack of considering logical extensions. Think some more and if you still fail then i will once again hold your hand through the process.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Posturing about my arguments being stupid is all well and good but you need to consider that I am arguing statements that you have made. That begs the question: where does the stupidity originate?

Introspection is important.

[CosmicCowboy]

And you sound like the typical ignorant that feels threatened by intelligence. Age smack coming from a boomer is hilarious. I would much rather be that kid then a member of the largest failure of a generation than the last one the gilded age spat out. I talk the way that i think and only dumb myself down for kids and even then I try and push them to a greater vocabulary. If you like to mire yourself in the world of a simpleton then go ahead but again your criticisms because I refuse to stoop to said level are again hollow.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's what broke the 'that.'

Libya was instrumental in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Kadhafi had 'cleaned himself up' before that too. Nevermind his attacks or support of attacks against the US and our allies.

And i never said that you claimed Syria was an ally. I never claimed that you said the other two were either. This goes back to your lack of considering logical extensions. Think some more and if you still fail then i will once again hold your hand through the process.

Boy, for someone that claims to be smart you sure don't know .

The first gulf war fixed Kuwait. You do remember there were TWO invasions of Iraq and not one, right? The first was a well deserved slap/spanking. The second one was a giant cluster .

Please provide proof that Libya was providing nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Did one of your imaginary friends in West Coast Utah tell you that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Boy, for someone that claims to be smart you sure don't know .

The first gulf war fixed Kuwait. You do remember there were TWO invasions of Iraq and not one, right? The first was a well deserved slap/spanking. The second one was a giant cluster .

Please provide proof that Libya was providing nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Did one of your imaginary friends in West Coast Utah tell you that?

I don't claim to be smart. You say i don't know and then followup with :

The first gulf war fixed Kuwait. You do remember there were TWO invasions of Iraq and not one, right? The first was a well deserved slap/spanking. The second one was a giant cluster .

Was or was not Iraq a hostile state follwong the first Gulf War?

As for Kadhafi and nuclear weapons read up:

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/libya/nuclear/

He was collaborating with Khan. You know who Dr. Khan is right? Saying that I do not know after demonstrating ignorance is good for entertainment value.

[CosmicCowboy]

Your OWN LINK says he gave up all his nuclear ambitions and let us disassemble everything.

Doesn't say about him providing nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own

your exact words, .

still awaiting proof to back up your hyperbole.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are aware they found a whole lot of uranium that he said he didn't have right?

He was collaborating with Khan. That was the point of the link. He also had a ton of uranium that he said he didn't have.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-says-libyan...183713150.html

Was your head up your ass when all that discussion of finding his stockpiles of nuclear material, chemical weapons and various delivery devices needed to be a priority? Rebels found them because we had no idea they were there.

On a final note you need to look up the term hyperbole. What i do see is naivete about the earnestness of Kadhafi 'cleaning his act up.' He lied to the IAEA over and again.

You know the cliche: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.....

[CosmicCowboy]

So tell me again...I must have missed it...who did Gaddafi give nukes to?

BTW, if you think I don't understand the meaning of hyperbole then that means you really do believe Gaddafi gave nukes away. I knew you were stupid but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt while owning your ass again.

[DMC]

I would've felt the same way about Bush tbh -- I don't think he is a Muslim either.

Right, but feeling it and saying it are two different things, or are you the only non-biased poster here?

[DMC]

With Egypt, doing nothing put the US on the right side of history in the region for once.

Given the fact that a lot of our problems around there came from installing and/or propping up dictators, I'm fine with trying something different. We'll have to wait some years to see if the result is any different.

lol

Wait some years = don't blame Obama.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So tell me again...I must have missed it...who did Gaddafi give nukes to?

BTW, if you think I don't understand the meaning of hyperbole then that means you really do believe Gaddafi gave nukes away. I knew you were stupid but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt while owning your ass again.

You understand the irony of calling me a teenager and then following up with this "owning your ass again" line. I realize hypocrisy is your way but at least try.

If you are looking for a smoking gun that Libya sold a centrifuge to Iran on such and such date then you are not going to get one. The links I gave you outlined two things.

1) Libya had nuclear materials and enrichment equipment that we did not know they had. At one point the IAEA found 2.5 times as much as they claimed to have and after he was overthrown they found all kinds of stockpiles that again were unknown to exist.

2) Libya, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan all collaborated on nuclear weapons programs for over a decade.

This gets back to logical conclusions which you are unable to reach.

[CosmicCowboy]

You understand the irony of calling me a teenager and then following up with this "owning your ass again" line. I realize hypocrisy is your way but at least try.

If you are looking for a smoking gun that Libya sold a centrifuge to Iran on such and such date then you are not going to get one. The links I gave you outlined two things.

1) Libya had nuclear materials and enrichment equipment that we did not know they had. At one point the IAEA found 2.5 times as much as they claimed to have and after he was overthrown they found all kinds of stockpiles that again were unknown to exist.

2) Libya, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan all collaborated on nuclear weapons programs for over a decade.

This gets back to logical conclusions which you are unable to reach.

So...lets get this straight...Gaddafi didn't give anyone nuclear weapons like you claimed?

Is that your final answer?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So...lets get this straight...Gaddafi didn't give anyone nuclear weapons like you claimed?

Is that your final answer?

While i am not surprised that this is the conclusion that you draw, it's still pretty sad. I'm going to go watch the game. The only one you are 'owning' here is yourself.

Oh and an incorrect statement is not hyperbole. Need me to link the definition? Since I am going to be gone here you go:

Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

[CosmicCowboy]

While i am not surprised that this is the conclusion that you draw, it's still pretty sad. I'm going to go watch the game. The only one you are 'owning' here is yourself.

Oh and an incorrect statement is not hyperbole. Need me to link the definition? Since I am going to be gone here you go:

Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Kind of like when you claimed Gaddafi gave away nuclear weapons? Even when (I was giving you the benefit of the doubt) You should have known that Gaddafi never had nuclear weapons to give away?

You don't go to UTSA do you?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh and an incorrect statement is not hyperbole.



Admitting you lied about Libya giving away nukes to try to win your new argument on "hyperbole" definition smack?

This is priceless.

And to think I considered putting you on ignore because you were so ing stupid.